Thanks for listening, I've been wanting to vent and this is a good place to do it.

Yes it is, and thank you for your input.

Thanks for listening, I've been wanting to vent and this is a good place to do it.

Yes it is, and thank you for your input.

If you want to contact the insensitive, unpatriotic idiots personally, here's their contact info:

CLARK M GALLOWAY
10619 STIRRUP DR SE
CALEDONIA, MI (616) 891-1616

NORMAN H BLEDSOE
3399 STIRRUP CT SE
CALEDONIA, MI

The little martinet is just a few doors down from his boss.

Roger,
Those addresses are their personal residences. Even though that is public knowledge via the phone directories (and probably PeopleSearch), I think their office address is more appropriate for this stuff. But I have to agree with your characterization of them.
Keep watching the news (especially the local area woodtv.com). I am told that this story has legs and will continue to evolve

sending mail to their personal homes is not a good idea.

it is the business entity that you wish to speak to


As a person who is currently fighting their ex-employee about very specific items that include putting peoples lives at risk and firing me, I have to say all mail has gone to the business offices where the people I want to contact are.

Considering I am the person in the case, I could be evil and send it to their house and aski them why they run their business that way, but I am not like them.

with all that said, business is busines. they have the right to fire someone if they want. they even have the right to say that the person was not what they wanted based on these reasons (and those reasons do not have to be documented)

Employees do not have to be nice about it either and if she decides to sue she most likly will not win unless they fired hire for racial or other human rights reasons. She probably can get unemployement, but soe companies... stretch... thr truth about why they were fired or say that they quit (they could technically say she quit because she didn't come in) so she might not get that either.


THAT, ladies and genltemen, is the way it is. I have to say I don't think it can be any other way due to the fact that employers need to be able to hire and fire. The ONLY reason why more employers don't do what this one does on a consistant basis is because of paying out lawyers to fight lawsuits (it has nothing to do with winning or losing... just being in court costs money). Also, public relations can end up being a problem if they fire people just to fire them (not to mention their remaining employees might not be very productive for a company who acts this way)


When you really feel like you have a case against an employer for firing you (or you 'techically quitting' be not showing up one day) and they have a record of doing dishonest things, then you can do what I did; tell local representives, new agencies, and even your public avocate. You can also go to Human Rights, and the EEOC or the ACLU (I don't like them too much but they are good for somethings).

Considing my last job was a security guard in a musuem who was/is threatened by terrorism and other criminal types AND is open to the public (being a musuem... they do that) my little issue with the company has become a bigger issue with security of all musuems in NYC.

How you like them apples?


Nevertheless, a companies right to fire someone will remain and most people can do nothing about it unless they have a contract or ws in a union at the time. I don't think allot of people realize just how easy they can become unemployeed, homeless, and on welfare.

Also, public relations can end up being a problem if they fire people just to fire them (not to mention their remaining employees might not be very productive for a company who acts this way)

I think that is the whole idea behind this.  Not to pull them into court, but to embarass them in the public eye.

At this point, I agree somewhat with that statement. Henry has built this business himself and tries to run it the same way he runs his family, with an iron fist. There are many subtleties involved in managing employees and business relationships and he is lacking in these areas. But now the curtain is being pulled back and people are seeing how he runs things...by intimidation and strong-arm tactics. We won't sink to his level and throw dirt, but instead will shine the light on his deeds and let people make up their own minds. He can appear like a great 'partriarch' at work as long as he needs people for things. Once he no longer needs them, them he discards them. Unmercifully. Without any 'due process'. He has never been challenged on this until now. The former employees (both the ones fired and the ones who have quit) are cheering the news articles and the publicity. Because even though today's story is about the firing, we believe there is a deeper story here that we think will slowly come out....one that will involve the courts. Keep watching this story!

We won't sink to his level and throw dirt, but instead will shine the light on his deeds and let people make up their own minds.

In the end, that is worse than dragging them into court.  No one wants to do business with a social pariah.

That is exactly correct. In the business world, their lifeblood is relationships. I fully expect to see companies terminating their relationships and contracts during the next few weeks. I know that if I were a business owner, that is exactly what I would do. It's the biggest pressure point they have.

I was in the home of Suzette Boler yesterday, meeting her for the first time. She has been interviewed by CNN (I think she said it would air on Monday) and also will be interviewed (via satellite) by (Sean) Hannity and Colmes in the next day or two.

Just for a little background on how this whole story broke, Suzette herself did not go to the Press. She is not a mean vindictive worman. She is a very sweet lady who has been crushed. When she went to the office of BMA to collect her personal items, her father went with her. He asked to speak with Henry, who was very rude to him. The next day, Suzette's mother wrote a letter to the editor of the local paper (Grand Rapids Press). A writer there, Ted Roelofs, decided that this was a story that needed to be written so he picked up on it and did a very good job.
All I would ask is that everyone look past all of the smoke and mud and base their opinions soley on the FACTS.

Just like CSI.

Have a great weekend!

What about the reports that she was the company's highest Internet user, even though there was no business purpose for her to be on the Internet on company time? Or that she had a history of heavy usage of the company phones and fax machines for personal use? Even though I feel sympathetic to her personal situation, it sounds like a case of a so-so employee milking the public's sympathy by playing the husband-in-the-military card.

To be honest, I don't have any personal knowledge of that. I just met the woman yesterday and that topic did not come up in our conversation. But do the math on this. According to the local TV interview with Henry Bledsoe (go to www.woodtv.com and search the video files for video_id=1649), he accuses her of browsing 6,000 sites in one week (three days). That comes out to 2,000 sites per day. Even if she worked 10 hour days , that would come out to 200 sites per hour all day every day. I haven't met anyone who believes that. Now I'm not saying that she didn't use the Internet, I don't know. All I'm saying is that if this was a problem, it should have been addressed and she should have been reprimanded for it properly. But that stuff didn't even come up at all until after the story broke. Remember, missing a day of work was the only thing that was listed on her termination letter as the reason for dismissal. Her personnel file is clean, that's why she authorized it to be released. Funny thing, the company won't release her file but it will make unsubstantiated and undocumented accusations on TV that she can't defend herself against. After all, how do you prove a negative? How can she now prove that she *didnt* do what they say. That's why the files and documentation is so critical, it prevents mudslinging and the "he said-she said" problem.

I had heard the 6,000 sites in a week number also, which does sound a little implausible to me. I wonder if that number would have included sites that were linked to ones that she had visited (say, an advertisement or a linked story/photograph) - I know that there are sites that I've never actually visited which appear in my browser cache. (Someone with a little more technical knowledge might know the answer to that.) If and when there is a court case, that's when the truth will come out - both sides will have to present whatever documentation they have, instead of the mudslinging. She might very well have been wrongfully terminated, but it seems hard to believe that a company would terminated a valuable, solid, productive employee without more cause than just miscommunication over one day. Even a hard-nosed, bottom-line employer would think about the cost of hiring/training a new employee. It just seems like there is more to the story than what is being presented in the media.

I agree with regarding the linked sites theory. That does sound plausible to me. Regarding the termination, my biggest problem with this employer is that this is the fourth employee that they have terminated in the last two years without just cause (see my Oct 29th post). I have direct knowledge of the each of the situations and know the people personally and can attest to the fact that in each case there was no prior warning, no documentation, no 'due process', and no justification. One person had been with them since the beginning of the company when they were operating out of their home. The other two were personal friends (competent and able) who were hired to help the company grow. They did their jobs professionally and well. Somehow, the success and growth of their business over the last several years has changed these people (the owners).